The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Tuesday in Blanche v. Lau that border agents need not prove by clear and convincing evidence that a returning green card holder committed a crime before denying re-entry.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, saying "The Immigration and Nationality Act does not impose that requirement," and the decision bolsters the ability of federal border agents to remove lawful permanent residents who may have committed a crime involving "moral turpitude."
The ruling effectively makes it easier for border officials to strip lawful permanent resident status from people as they arrive at U.S. ports of entry.
The case centers on Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen and U.S. green card holder who was deemed inadmissible at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport in 2012 as he was returning from a trip to China; officials denied his formal re-entry at the time because he faced New Jersey state charges for trademark counterfeiting, though he was conditionally allowed readmission.
A year later, Lau pleaded guilty to the counterfeiting charge and was subsequently ordered deported, and he continued to contest his removal by arguing that the crime did not constitute one of "moral turpitude."
In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, wrote, "I worry that the court has now handed the government a massive blank check," and added, "With today's the decision, the Court allows the government to return an LPR to the status of 'seeking admission' upon his entry at the border, so long as the government is able to show later that he was eventually convicted. That sequencing undermines the plain terms and basic operation" of the law.
U.S. immigration law says green card holders who legally leave the U.S. for short periods should be allowed to re-enter, but includes exceptions such as when the green card holder is convicted of or admits to having committed "a crime involving moral turpitude."